SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1987 Supreme(SC) 688

G.L.OZA, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
Subramaniam Shanmugham – Appellant
Versus
M. L. Rajendran – Respondent


Advocates:
DHANESHVARI, R.V.PILLAI, S.SRINIVASA VARMA, SHYAMALA PAPPU

Judgement

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J. :- This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment and order of the High Court on 13th January, 1986 ordering eviction under S. 10(3)(c), Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act. 1960, hereinafter called the Act. This is an appeal by the tenant. A room in the front portion of the building had been leased out to the tenant for non-residential purposes. The landlord resides in the other portion. The landlord needed additional accommodation for residential purposes due to marriages in the family. Was the portion let out as such separate and distinct unit for the purpose of S. 10(3)(c) of the Act? It was not and as such the landlord was entitled to seek eviction of the tenant under S. 10(3)(c) of the Act. It has been so held clearly by this Court in Shri Balaganesan Metals v. M. N. Sanmugham Chetty (1987) 2 SCC 707 : (AIR 1987 SC 1668) wherein the section has been analysed and explained. Ms. Shyamala Pappu, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the decision needs reconsideration as the residential and the non-residential part of the building covered as separate units and the requirements of the two separate parts have not been pr




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top